Obesity

[Rose]

Over the last half-century, reduction in the use of tobacco products and exposure to their hazards has been the result of a combination of education, regulation, and denormalization.

The same combination of approaches can be used to address obesity, in a strategy where individual approaches are supported by policies and public education campaigns aimed at improving population health through diet and exercise
http://www.alphaweb.org/docs/lib_008731435.pdf

[Rose]

Surrogate nicotine patches for the overweight?

Chemists to provide obesity pill
"The obesity pill, orlistat, has been licensed to be sold over-the-counter at chemists in the EU"
"GlaxoSmithKline, who make the pill known commercially as alli, say their clinical trials show that adding orlistat to a reduced calorie, lower fat diet, can help people lose 50% more weight than dieting alone"

"But Professor Alan Maryon-Davis, president of the Faculty of Public Health, said: "My worry is that a lot of people will take these pills without proper advice and support about dieting and exercise."

"And Steve Field of the Royal College of GPs said: "The side effects of this drug are very unpleasant in many people. The pill should only be used with support and dietary advice."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7843061.stm

SIDE EFFECTS: The most common side effects of orlistat are oily spotting on underwear, flatulence, urgent bowel movements, fatty or oily stools, increased number of bowel movements, abdominal pain or discomfort, and inability to control stool (incontinence). Between 1 in 250 and 1 in 70 patients experienced one or more of these symptoms in the first year. Generally, the side effects occurred within three months of starting therapy. In about 50% of patients, the side effects resolved within one to four weeks, but the effects in some patients lasted six months or longer"
http://www.medicinenet.com/orlistat/article.htm

Possible Interactions with: Vitamin K

Weight Loss Products
Orlistat, a medication used for weight loss and olestra, a substance added to certain food products, are both intended to bind to fat and prevent the absorption of fat and the associated calories. Because of their effects on fat, orlistat and olestra may also prevent the absorption of fat-soluble vitamins such as vitamin K. Given this concern and possibility, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) now requires that vitamin K and other fat soluble vitamins (namely, A, D, and E) be added to food products containing olestra"
http://www.besthealth.com/Integrated%20 ... VitaminKcs

The Problem with Olestra
http://www.cspinet.org/olestra/11cons.html
Only read to the bottom of the page if you have a strong stomach.

[Ariel]

Rose, around here - they've sort of dropped the name "Olestra" - which we used to hear a lot about -- in favor of the new (same drug) "Alli".

Half of all tv ads are that bitch talking about how she's addicted to cigarettes, because she has like 3 cigarettes before lunchtime... -- but her doctor can help her (I tune out before that point - I don't know what it's for).

The other half of ads seem to be that one with the "pharmacist" telling how Alli worked for her or she wouldn't recommend it. (wouldn't recommend it if she wasn't an actress being paid $$ - is what I assume she means). Perhaps I'm exaggerating -- there is still some TV ad space for the run it into the ground Geico gekko and the Geico cavemen...

Anyway -- Alli

http://www.sensational.com/diet/alliDietPill.html

"As mentioned, alli™ uses Xenical, a prescription drug formerly used to assist the morbidly obese. The active ingredient in Xenical is Orlistat, whose primary function is to prevent the absorption of ingested fats and thereby reduce caloric intake. By inhibiting an enzyme in the Pancreas responsible for breaking down triglycerides in the intestines, Orlistat helps prevent fats from being absorbed. These are then excreted undigested. The drug company states that this product will help block approximately 25% of all fat in the diet. Most of the fats we ingest are eliminated through our waste in the normal fashion, but the way this product functions causes some really unpleasant side-effects like gas, incontinence, and oily spotting. If you never have to leave your home, or be in the presence of others, this may be the product for you. Besides being embarrassing and just generally uncomfortable, the side-effects of this product are certainly inconvenient and intrusive, and have already made some customers re-evaluate its use. "

[WinstonSmith]

I have a friend who used Alli to lose 28 pounds. She described how it worked to me and I thought "My God, I would never take that crap!"

To me, it reinforces, again, how mixed-up and illogical institutionalized healthism is. They say that they want to promote exercise and healthy diets because obesity is a very common side effect of a lack thereof.

Then, next breath, go ahead and take this crap that will completely rework your whole digestive process. Don't worry! It's safe! No healthy diet, no exercise! Just take a pill!

[Ariel]

"My God, I would never take that crap!"


That was a joke right? (LMAO!)

"The most common side effects of orlistat are oily spotting on underwear, flatulence, urgent bowel movements, fatty or oily stools, increased number of bowel movements..."

[Rose]

The denormalization bit got to me, I don't want any of my more ample friends being bullied in the same way we have been.

How can it be good for anyones health, to spend weeks or months afraid to leave the house incase of embarassing yourself in public,and socially isolated with a fist full of antidepressants.
Not to mention what permanent damage they may do to their bodies.
If we get another point and laugh campaign, it would be catastrophic to their self esteem.

[Rose]

The chance of cutting obesity? A big fat zero

The number of failed government healthy-eating initiatives is expanding in step with the national waistline
They're not talking about me, are they, in that fatty campaign thingy, the one done by the Wallace & Gromit people? I'm not obese. This new government weight campaign, the one with the Stone Age people modernising and growing flabby, is for the fatties, isn't it, and we all know who they are. It's not going to work either, is it? Because the very people the campaign is aimed at will ignore it, won't they?

Well, yes, probably. Because the people it is aimed at really is you and me. Public-health campaigns such as Change4Life, launched last week, have the greatest effect if a large number of low-risk people change their behaviour; far greater than if the smaller number of high-risk people do. So, yes, it is you and me they are talking to.

That brings its own problems: while the benefit to society as a whole if lots of low-risk people eat slightly better is large in terms of savings for the NHS in future, the benefit to the individual is small. Which is why nearly all public health campaigns fail; and why I suspect that this one, all £75 million of it, will as well.

A man with the marvellous title of Winton Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk, David Spiegelhalter, of Cambridge University, last year analysed for the Royal Statistical Society the effects of a campaign to reduce alcohol consumption.
He showed that a 20-year-old man drinking a “hazardous” four units a day who reduced his intake to the recommended safe limit of one per day, will gain 73 extra days of life, or 20 seconds for each pint not drunk - which may seem a poor return for forgoing the pleasure.

While ministers and public health officials give advice based on what is good for society, Professor Spiegelhalter concluded, “individuals receiving that advice may, equally reasonably, choose to ignore it”.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 461512.ece

[gary k]

Here in the U.S.A.,we did not have an overweight/obesity epidemic until 1998,when they lowered the BMI standards.

If they returned the BMI standards to the previous level, there would 'OVERNIGHT' be about 30,000,000 fewer overweight/obese adults and the 'so called' epidemic would be over!!!

Since there is neither more money or control involved, that obvious solution will NEVER happen.

[Rose]

Gary

(Keep this quiet, but between you and me, looking at the shoppers when I go walking down the High Street, we haven't got an obesity epidemic either)

[Ariel]

Mr. Ariel's boss had bariatric surgery last year. I was surprised when I heard, because he wasn't what I would have called "obese" by any means. Hardly even 'overweight". just a regular mid-fifties guy -- bit of a gut -- probably a former athlete -- someone youd expect to see at the neighborhood barbecue. Average guy.

I heard it that the expectation was that it would cure his "sleep apnea". Anyway -- he was out of work for some time for the surgery (couple weeks). Then shortly after - he was out of work for 4 weeks due to complications from the surgery (had to go back and have something repaired).

About 6 months later, I asked Mr. Ariel "How's he look?". He replied "He looks awful, like a fat guy who lost weight". I know what he means. When someone goes below the weight that nature intended -- they get this odd look - like their heads are too big for their bodies. (Oprah looked like that when she lost a lot of weight years ago).

Anyway - he (the boss) left for another job -- so I don't know if he's had any further complications.

No real point to this story. Just an anecdote.

[Rose]

Ariel

I suppose it depends if you are happy in your own skin. If you are not, you may be sensitive to criticism and take extreme measures.
Thats what worries me.
There was another feature on those pills today.

I haven't ever been on a diet, but I know some people get pretty obsessive.

5ft 8- size 16 same size for 35 years, thats what I'm clearly meant to be and I'm fine with that.

[Rose]

Council tells couple they are too fat to adopt

"A married couple have spoken of their shock after being turned down to adopt on the grounds that one of them is too fat.
Damien and Charlotte Hall approached Leeds City Council about adoption after discovering that they were unable to have children of their own.

They were told that Mr Hall’s size, at six foot one and a weight of 24-and-a-half stone (156kg), made him morbidly obese, with a body mass index (BMI) of more than 42.
In a letter, the council told them his BMI must be below 40 before the couple could be considered as potential parents because of a risk he could become ill or even die"

"“The bottom line is I’m too fat. I just feel as though we were only judged on my weight and not all the other good things about us," said Mr Hall, 37, who works in a call centre.
“We don’t drink or smoke and we could give a child a happy and safe home.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 500611.ece

[gary k]

RE:Quitting causes lung cancer!

There are about 225 million adults in the USA.

Anti-smokers say that there are about 45 million smokers and an equal,45 million, ex-smokers.
That leaves 135 million never smokers.

1993 EPA Report said that a never-smoker's chances of getting lung cancer(dying from it) were 1/10,000 per year.

Anti-smokers say that a smoker's chance of getting lung cancer is ten(10) times that of a never-smoker or 10/10,000 or 1/1,000.

135 million never-smokers divided by 10,000 gives us 13,500 never-smokers per year dying from lung cancer.

45 million smokers divided by 1,000 gives us 45,000 smokers dying per year from lung cancer.

Health folks tell us that there are about 160,000 deaths from lung cancer per year.

45,000(smoker) + 13,500(never-smoker) lung cancer deaths per year equal 58,500 lung cancer deaths per year.

That leaves about 100,000 lung cancer deaths to the 45 million ex-smokers.

That is a rate per year that is twice the rate of the 45 million smokers!!!

[Rose]

Gary
So what about nonsmokers, doing the same occupation at the same location as people who smoke, and do they die younger or older of something else?

"In the last 150 years there has been a shift in the major cause of death from infectious & preventable/treatable conditions to the degenerative diseases of old age. Thus the most dramatic increase in life expectancy has occurred for the youngest ages. Conversely, the life expectancy for a 70-year-old has not increased much in the last 150 years."

Having had a brief look, it seems to be heart problems and cancers for nonsmokers, which of course have been neatly filed under smoking-related.

The reason I ask is that I am looking at the apparent protective effect.
Or perhaps workers under the same toxic load use the same coping strategems with similar outcomes overall, but possibly years later than they would have happened.

Pity they seem to have wasted their time just studying us.

[Rose]

You knew it was coming -

Meat to be removed from hospital menus in NHS plan to cut carbon emissions

"Patients could be forced to go without meat in hospitals under controversial new NHS plans to cut carbon emissions.
The plan to offer patients meat-free menus is part of a major new 'green' strategy to be announced tomorrow.
Staff will also be encouraged to walk or take public transport and cut their number of work-related journeys by working from home.
The new strategy will also look at ways of encouraging patients to leave their cars at home.

According to some experts, eating meat contributes towards global warming because of the chemicals sprayed on feed crops and the methane emitted by cattle and sheep.
But the plan is likely to come under attack from patients' groups who will see it as further evidence of political correctness taking precedence over patients' rights.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... sions.html